- Jul 2, 2012
- 3,075
- 2,597
Will science eventually replace religion?
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by 3am scholar,
- Start date
- Apr 30, 2008
- 5,412
- 1,546
welp...
another one of those threads again.
another one of those threads again.
i think it will tho
- Aug 5, 2009
- 6,933
- 751
Science will never have all the answers neither will religion
futuremd
Banned
- Jul 18, 2012
- 6,448
- 1,433
Religion doesn't have answers. It makes assertions that are unfalsifiable, untestable, unsubstantiated, and unprovable.
Science never claims to ever be able to have ultimate knowledge of everything. Its open to being wrong about things. Religion isn't. Its assertions are falsifiable, testable, substantiated, and provable. Its an epistemological hardline. All science can do is reinforce its assertions with evidence to a particularly observable degree.
HOWEVER...religion is said to be in conflict with science when religion makes a claim that science can explain away. So you could say that modern religion exists in the margins of science textbooks.
Remember, every modern theist would be considered a heretic hundreds of years ago based on things that they have learned and now take for granted as common knowledge.
- Jan 3, 2011
- 1,661
- 81
i don't really think so. religion provides more than just answers to the natural world. religion provides hope, comfort, and a code to follow. i don't think science will ever really replace that. i think the fact that mormonism still exists shows that nothing will eradicate religion.
- Jul 18, 2012
- 9,423
- 4,741
maybe for some, but there will always be people out there that will live and die by religion.
- Oct 8, 2002
- 46,072
- 50,782
I honestly believe that Star Wars will replace religion. Srs
Hundreds and hundreds of years from now the Star Wars movies will be the new bible.
Hundreds and hundreds of years from now the Star Wars movies will be the new bible.
- Mar 6, 2004
- 8,818
- 4,298
I want science majors to replace business/law majors in politics.
Last edited:
yeold360s
Banned
- Jul 24, 2012
- 591
- 102
futuremd
Banned
- Jul 18, 2012
- 6,448
- 1,433
This is an important part.
Religion is more of a social coping mechanism than an actual way to "explain" things...It doesn't make it any more true, real, or valid.
We can even explain the biological substrates of emotions and the modalities of perception. We understand more about social pressures behind mental phenomena and we have far better and thorough explanations for things that we once thought were indicative of the supernatural.
I disagree with you on the "code to follow" merely because morality is observed in the absence of religion (eastern/western/spiritual/etc.) on nearly every level. I know what you mean though.
I forget who said it, but Mormonism is fascinating because its one of the few times in human history that we have a record of the evolution of a cult that blossomed into a largely respected religion. Mormonism is just THAT new.
This is one of my favorite videos on why religion works so well on people...emotionally at least.
- Dec 18, 2010
- 2,549
- 206
Religion was made to control people.
Science will take over because it is the truth.
Science will take over because it is the truth.
- Jul 2, 2012
- 3,075
- 2,597
mmg
Banned
- Feb 1, 2012
- 8,261
- 842
Son he said Star Wars , not trek
- Jan 3, 2011
- 1,661
- 81
i've actually developed an interest in mormonism recently. it's amazing to me because the book of mormom can pretty much be linked to six different sources that joseph smith had access to. the book itself has been modified since it was first written (strange because joseph smith supposedly translated it with the help of god). none of the events in the book of mormom can be linked to any archaeological evidence. without the establishment of the early church of mormonism, there's no way it would have ever developed into what it is today.
- Apr 22, 2010
- 4,837
- 215
To some, whether they want to believe it or not, Science is its own religion.
Yet, even a lot of those theories that explain those workings were discovered by deeply religious people. Even though the religion they were devouted to tried to kill them eg Copernicus, Galileo, and Galen.
Yet, even a lot of those theories that explain those workings were discovered by deeply religious people. Even though the religion they were devouted to tried to kill them eg Copernicus, Galileo, and Galen.
- Aug 1, 2009
- 5,544
- 655
Eventually there will be far less people who believe in religion than follow science.
shatterkneesinc
Banned
- Nov 25, 2005
- 22,524
- 2,383
futuremd
Banned
- Jul 18, 2012
- 6,448
- 1,433
The funny thing is how accurate (not perfect) the depiction of Mormonism is from South Park.
Obviously they left some stuff out but its pretty funny nonetheless...because its true.
- Nov 20, 2007
- 90,928
- 55,616
Are you asking if one day ppl will treat science the same way they do religion on a global scale? GOD I hope not.
Science has already had a few set backs by those with an agenda but I don't want religious minded approaching science the same way they do religion. I'd prefer they die out than that happen.
If you're asking if religion will be completely done away with and more ppl will be educated about what science has discovered, what it is, and the purpose of it I'd hope so.
The way I see it religion and science are not even in the same category. It's really not an option between the two because one is just nonsensical. This aint like choosing what particular religion you subscribe to it's literally the difference between what's real and what's made up.
Science has already had a few set backs by those with an agenda but I don't want religious minded approaching science the same way they do religion. I'd prefer they die out than that happen.
If you're asking if religion will be completely done away with and more ppl will be educated about what science has discovered, what it is, and the purpose of it I'd hope so.
The way I see it religion and science are not even in the same category. It's really not an option between the two because one is just nonsensical. This aint like choosing what particular religion you subscribe to it's literally the difference between what's real and what's made up.
Last edited:
futuremd
Banned
- Jul 18, 2012
- 6,448
- 1,433
"Science" also created the MRI.
You know there is an impending shortage of helium because its creation during atomic weapon production has slowed down and access to their underground sources as a by product of natural gas discovery is slowing down due to them being finite.
Oh but wait...the same helium is CRUCIAL to MRI's even turning on.
Science isn't concerned with morality. There isn't something "good" or "bad" about science. The same techniques that allow laser guided weapons allow you to use geotagging on instagram. Its merely concerned with the accumulation of knowledge for further and greater aims.
- Jul 2, 2012
- 3,075
- 2,597
Son he said Star Wars , not trek
Doesn't matter if it's Doctor Who or Stargate either. They're all expressing the idea of warp drive
- Aug 31, 2012
- 13,499
- 38,645
There will always be questions about our existence that we don't have the answer to, and there will always be people to fill those gaps of knowledge with "God did it."
- Mar 14, 2006
- 17,697
- 2,715
No, of course all those that love to bash religion would love to think so.
- Oct 8, 2005
- 13,424
- 4,833
futuremd
Banned
- Jul 18, 2012
- 6,448
- 1,433
Wrong.To some, whether they want to believe it or not, Science is its own religion.
Yet, even a lot of those theories that explain those workings were discovered by deeply religious people. Even though the religion they were devouted to tried to kill them eg Copernicus, Galileo, and Galen.
You're a Physicians Assistant, right?
Are you not a proponent of evidenced based medicine? Or do you just go off of random assertions?
Science doesn't go off of one book written 2000 years ago and assume its inerrancy. It sometimes gets things wrong and changes them. Thank Zeus for the wisdom to do even that. I guess the process of peer-review and revision is now a weakness?
Oh and you don't get to escape with the "whether they believe it or not" and refuse to actually prove that assertion. We're not playing that game today. You say something and back it up, or you say nothing at all. You're better than that.
Mind you, Copernicus, Galileo, and Galen...and hell even NEWTON were "religious" you miss the nuance in their arguments.
For Copernicus and Galileo and even Pascal, religion did not answer the questions in the realms of their discovery. Pressure wasn't some mystical force to pascal. Geocentrism orbit wasn't the hand of god in Galileo's eyes.
Newton's religious views had changed REMARKABLY by the time he died. Granted, he was still tinkering with forms of alchemy that were debunked after his death, that didn't invalidate his work elsewhere. Additionally, if you've actually read about Newton, you'd know that with each of his discoveries, he got REALLY nervous because he knew he was encroaching on "god" because he knew god couldn't be used to explain things he knew to be better described otherwise. He also experimented with other forms of christianity that might even be called paganism occultism...merely attempts for him to reconcile his desire to believe, rather than for these things to actually be true. His writings near his death almost painted him as a heretic at his time of death.
EVEN FURTHER, if you were a non-believer before the enlightenment (almost machiallelian) then you were just risking it because you really had NO idea. We didn't know enough to justifiably say that we were comfortable in debunking the claims of religion. Most people were just culturally religious in the sense that they identified with it as much as they do with their favorite sports team...not to mention, non-believers were killed...BUT most of the funding for "science" (a term thats relatively new) came from places with all the money i.e. formalized religious institutions like churches and monarchs. Around the time of the industrial revolution, you've got a bunch of atheists coming out basically saying "god is dead and we killed him." Essentially meaning that we finally understood enough about the world to debunk the claims for organized religions in just about, if not all, forms. Our rate of discovery in the past 200 years unveiled the darkness of thousands of years of ignorance about the universe in ways that religion no longer had answers for.
But you neglect to remember how you use Arabic numbers and muslims did work for algebra...does that mean Allah is then a viable proposition?
I don't recall the desire to uncover the the theory of relativity and provide applications for it being equivalent to a "religion" any more than I do the design of a car to travel across the country as a religion.
Last edited:
